Read this excerpt from the District of Columbia v. Heller dissenting opinion:

The (Second) Amendment permits government to regulate

the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what

those interests are-whether they do or do not include an

independent interest in self-defense-the majority's view

cannot be correct unless it can show that (Washington,

D. C.'s) regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in

Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do. 3

What does the author of this excerpt most likely believe?

A. Individual states may prohibit firearm ownership, but the federal

government cannot.

B. Firearms are a danger to the average citizen and should be

outlawed nationwide.

C. Cities have the right to reasonably limit individual rights to

promote the public interest.

D. The Second Amendment no longer applies to the modern United

States

Question

History

Peter Yang

16 November, 09:07

Read this excerpt from the District of Columbia v. Heller dissenting opinion:

The (Second) Amendment permits government to regulate

the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what

those interests are-whether they do or do not include an

independent interest in self-defense-the majority's view

cannot be correct unless it can show that (Washington,

D. C.'s) regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in

Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do. 3

What does the author of this excerpt most likely believe?

A. Individual states may prohibit firearm ownership, but the federal

government cannot.

B. Firearms are a danger to the average citizen and should be

outlawed nationwide.

C. Cities have the right to reasonably limit individual rights to

promote the public interest.

D. The Second Amendment no longer applies to the modern United

States

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Bella · Answer 1

C. Cities have the right to reasonably limit individual rights to

promote the public interest.

Explanation:

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U. S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5-4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).

The dissenting opinion was that that cities have the right to regulate the public use of gun which the masses believed was a neccesity.